From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 19:30:20 GMT
Rick, Jonathan and all:
JM said:
I think Rick's is a naive view of science and instrument, one almost
universal in those with no experience of scientific research, but also
common among scientists themselves.
Instruments are AIDS for human observation. Telescopes and microscopes don't
see anything for themselves!!! It takes a human to "read" the thermometer.
An X-ray diffractometer doesn't "see" atoms - the human interpreting the
results does that.
DMB says:
I think Rick makes an excellent point, which Jonathan seems to have missed,
and calling him names doesn't change that fact. It doesn't matter that
scientific instruments are extensions of our senses. I don't think anyone
would dispute that, but the point is that social values can't be sensed in
the same way we sense the material world. Presidents come and go. Some are
thin and some are fat. Some are tall. Some are short, but the presidency
itself does not have weight or height or any dimension. It is only created
and defined by social level values, for which there are material artifacts
and other outward expressions, such as the White House, but don't let that
confuse you. Social values are not contained in biological organism or in
marble. They are not physical. They belong to the mental and subjective,
just as intellectual values do.
JM said:
Undergraduates often take the view that "real" science is the results spat
out by complicated instrumentation. My experience is that some of the best
science involves intelligent observation using extremely limited
instrumentation. What instruments do you think the following scientists
used: Mendel, Darwin, Archimedes?
DMB says:
Undergraduates? There you go with the name calling again. How is the general
opinion of undergrads relevant to Rick's points? What does the instrument's
level of sophistication have to do with it? And since Mendel, Darwin and
Archimedes are famous for their investigation of biological and inorganic
level patterns, how is your point relevant to the detection of social
values? Seems like a diversion into irrelevancies to me.
JM said:
Maybe I erred in saying "simplest". What I really meant is most direct. When
it comes down to it, many observations are in fact conclusions. When I say
that I read the thermometer and the temperature was 21 degrees celcius,
practically everyone
would consider that to be an observation. It is in fact a conlcusion, and a
wrong one if the thermometer was faulty!!!! When it comes down to it,
eveything is a conclusion - a static pattern of quality constructed by the
human mind to represent a dynamic experience of quality.
DMB says:
To press the point once more. Yes, you can observe the thermometer and you
can observe the President. But the thermometer responds to the kinetic
energy, absorbs enough (or sheds its own in the case of a deep freezer or
whatever) of it to reach near equilibrium and a physical change occurs. The
mercury expands or contracts, depending. But what instrument can detect the
Presidency in this way? There are none, because its not a material thing. It
takes a human to detect the Presidency because it requires the apprehension
of something with no physcial properties per se. Can a person's level of
fame be measured and quantified? Can prestige or shame tip a scale? Anyone
ever choked on a lump of honor or missed a fly ball because a myth got in
their eyes? At what frequency does hope shine? And is there a red shift when
despair overcomes us? How come none of these things have any effect on
mercury?
Thanks,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 17 2002 - 19:30:48 GMT